CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Resolution ResDH(2004)35 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 31 July 2000 (final on 31 October 2000) in the case of Barfuss against the Czech Republic   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 June 2004 at the 885th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Barfuss case delivered on 31   July 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 35848/97) against the Czech Republic, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 February 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Jiří Barfuss, a Czech national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicant’s complaint under Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention that there had been a breach of his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, and his complaint under Article   6, paragraph   1 of the Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him;   Whereas in its judgment of 31 July 2000 the Court unanimously:   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention;   - held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 100 000 Czech crowns in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 100   000 Czech crowns in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 10% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 31 July 2000, having regard to the Czech Republic’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state indicated that measures had been taken to avoid new violations (see Resolution DH(2004)33 in the case of Punzelt against the Czech Republic), in particular through the publication of the judgment (on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice and in the Pravni Praxe , a journal of the Ministry of Justice widely disseminated in legal circles) and through its dissemination to the Constitutional Court and to the Regional courts, as well as through the entry into force, on 1 January 2002, of Law No. 265/2001 amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reduced the maximum time-limits for detention pending adjudication in criminal cases.   Having satisfied itself that on 29 January 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 31 July 2000,   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of the Czech Republic, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.